2012 (1) TMI 411 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, exclude the provisions of the Indian Penal Code when the act of an accused is an offence under both statutes.
2. The legality of police registering a case and filing a final report under both the IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act.
3. The conditions under which a Magistrate can take cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act.

Summary:

Issue 1: Exclusion of IPC Provisions by the Mines and Minerals Act
The court examined whether the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (Mines and Minerals Act) excludes the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) when the act of an accused constitutes an offence under both statutes. The court held that the offences under the IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act are distinct, with different ingredients. Therefore, the provisions of the Mines and Minerals Act do not exclude the provisions of the IPC. Consequently, it is lawful for the police to register a case under Section 379 IPC for theft of sand from government land and other relevant IPC provisions, investigate, and file a final report.

Issue 2: Legality of Police Registering a Case and Filing a Final Report
The court addressed the legality of police registering a case and filing a final report under both the IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act. It was held that the registration of a case under both statutes is not illegal. However, the police can only file a police report for offences under the IPC. For offences under the Mines and Minerals Act, the police must file a separate complaint if authorized under Section 22 of the Act. The court clarified that the Magistrate could take cognizance of IPC offences based on the police report but can only take cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act upon a complaint filed by an authorized person.

Issue 3: Conditions for Magistrate Taking Cognizance
The court examined the conditions under which a Magistrate can take cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act. It was held that cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act can only be taken on a complaint filed by a person authorized by the Central or State Government, not on a police report. The court highlighted that in the State of Tamil Nadu, as per G.O.Ms. No. 114, dated 18.09.2006, Inspectors of Police are authorized to file complaints under Section 22 of the Mines and Minerals Act. Therefore, upon completing the investigation, an Inspector of Police can file a complaint as an authorized person, and the Magistrate may take cognizance based on this complaint.

Conclusion:
The FIRs in the cases before the court cannot be quashed. The judgments in D. Sudharshan v. State, Muthu and another v. State, and K. Subramani v. State were overruled. The court provided detailed answers to the referred questions, clarifying the interplay between the IPC and the Mines and Minerals Act, the role of police in investigating offences under both statutes, and the conditions for Magistrate's cognizance of offences under the Mines and Minerals Act.